This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

‘These boys’ will go looking for ‘the alternative on the internet’ if they don’t tie the knot, says IDS.

Unmarried men often grow into “dysfunctional” human beings and become “a problem” for society, Iain Duncan Smith has said.

Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Tory MP also claimed cohabiting couples have “inherently unstable” relationships.

He went on to claim men out of wedlock were “released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do” such as committing crimes, drinking too much, taking drugs and fathering multiple children.

Couples living together were more likely to break up as the arrangement “suits the man” more than the woman, he went on to claim, and if men were not taught of the importance of marriage they would develop “low value for women” and seek out “the alternative on the internet”.

“Cohabitation is a very different relationship from marriage,” he said. “It is inherently unstable. The level of breakup is staggering high compared to marriage, and for the most part, these relationships break up upon arrival of a child.”

He went on: “The answer I think is because cohabitation suits one of the partners more than the other. Almost invariably it suits the man, because they have to make good on their commitment and when that commitment is facing them they then withdraw.

“In marriage, having made that commitment, the child becomes a focus for your responsibility and you commit more. They commit automatically once the child arrives.”

He went on: “Out there, these boys particularly, when left without the concept of what [marriage/commitment] is about will find the alternative on the internet.

“And the alternative on the internet, now so readily available, is about abusive sex and low value for women. That is where they will go.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Liam Fox and David Davis have called for an end to pessimism over Brexit and for the British public to "keep their eyes on the prize" on offer.

The international trade secretary hit out at "negative" attitudes in certain quarters and urged people to be more upbeat about the UK's prospects.

Mr Fox said all the UK's international partners wanted to do business with it but he warned advanced economies which had benefited from free markets and unrestricted trade not to "pull up the drawbridge", amid what he said was a worrying growth in protectionism.

"We need to stop the negative, undermining, self-defeating pessimism that is too prevalent in certain quarters and be bold, be brave and rise to the global challenges, together," he argued.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Jacob Rees-Mogg said yesterday that women who become pregnant after being raped are committing a “second wrong” if they seek an abortion. In an interview on BBC Radio Five Live, the Tory MP told Emma Barnett, “A great wrong has been created at the point of rape. The question is – does a second wrong make it any better?”

Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, has long been vocal about his views on abortion, which he says he opposes in all circumstances including rape. Speaking to Barnett, he also said that he would vote in parliament to limit the number of weeks at which a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy, whatever the proposal.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

There is nothing illegal about the trust, but its existence could prove awkward for Theresa May. She faces having to square donations from Ashcroft with the Conservative pledge to bring transparency to the offshore industry. Labour is also calling for wide-ranging changes.

Ashcroft, 71, is a former party treasurer and deputy chairman who has given millions to the Conservatives, including £500,000 towards the party’s most recent campaign. The pro-Brexit peer is influential in British politics through his polling company and the website ConservativeHome, a centre-right blog aimed at grassroots party activists.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-41879690"Analysis: BBC royal correspondent Nicholas WitchellThe Paradise Papers' revelations over the Queen's finances are certainly embarrassing. Many will also view the Duchy of Lancaster's offshore investments in BrightHouse and Threshers as dubious and inappropriate. However, it is not a question of tax avoidance, but of judgement on behalf of her advisers."

But surely it IS tax avoidance, or why do it? What it is not is tax evasion

Reveals offshore interests and activities of more than 120 politicians and world leaders, including Queen Elizabeth II, and 13 advisers, major donors and members of U.S. President Donald J. Trump

Exposes the tax engineering of more than 100 multinational corporations, including Apple, Nike and Botox-maker Allergan

Reveals tax haven shopping sprees by multinational companies in Africa and Asia that use shell companies in Mauritius and Singapore to reduce taxes

Shines a light on secretive deals and hidden companies connected to Glencore, the world’s largest commodity trader, and provides detailed accounts of the company’s negotiations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for valuable mineral resources

Provides details of how owners of jets and yachts, including royalty and sports stars, used Isle of Man tax-avoidance structures

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

If the point of government is to make the already disadvantaged worse off, then the Conservatives have used the last seven years in power exceptionally well. Today the Equality and Human Rights Commission released a major report calculating the impact austerity is having on Britain – painstakingly calculating the impact that changes to all tax, social security and public spending since 2010 will have on each of us by 2022.

The forecast is gross inequality. While the poorest are set to lose nearly 10% of their incomes, the richest will lose barely 1%. Break that down and the picture is staggering – not simply because of how much income is going to be pulled away, but who exactly it will be done to.

Families with a disabled child will be among the worst affected, with some taking a £5,500 reduction in income. Black households (as the report puts it) will lose 5% of income (more than double the loss for white households), while women will suffer a £940 annual loss (more than double the loss for men).

Anyone who has fallen ill with cancer only to be found “fit for work”, or skipped meals after having their child benefit frozen, won’t need any more proof that it’s them, rather than the wealthy and healthy, who have been suffering. The EHRC research is undeniable evidence of just how unequally the cuts have fallen across society.

From George Osborne’s “We’re all in it together” to Theresa May’s concern for the “just about managing”, since austerity measures were first ushered in, the Conservatives have continually peddled the idea the cuts are being shared fairly. What’s more, they have claimed that, owing to the complexity of working out the impact of multiple policies at once, even if there were a chance some groups would be worse hit, there is no real way of finding out.

The equalities watchdog report confirms once and for all that both of these claims have always been entirely false. As the chair of the commission, David Isaac, says: “We have encouraged the government to carry out this work for some time, but sadly they’ve refused. We have shown that it is possible.”

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

The head of Theresa May’s policy board has resigned amid calls for a radical shake-up of the Tory party.

Mid Norfolk MP George Freeman has stepped down from his role as chair of the Number 10 policy board to concentrate on reforming the party, in another blow to Theresa May's weakened administration.

Mr Freeman, who made headlines by organising a 'Tory Glastonbury' for party activists in the summer, said Conservative chairman Patrick McLoughlin needed to be replaced and called for a new team at CCHQ to rejuvenate the party.

It comes in the wake of several high-profile departures from Ms May's top team, as Sir Michael Fallon stood down as Defence Secretary amid sexual harassment allegations while International Development Secretary Priti Patel was also forced to resign for holding a string of secret meetings with senior Israeli figures.

Mr Freeman had clashed with Downing Street on the party's direction and wrote to Ms May saying the Tories risked alienating young voters if it allowed itself to be "defined as narrow party of nostalgia, hard Brexit, public sector austerity and lazy privilege".

Writing on the website ConservativeHome, he said: "I’ve stood down as Chair of the Prime Minister’s Policy Board in Number Ten, to focus on my role as Chair of the Conservative Policy Forum.

Mr Freeman said an "ambitious" programme of party reform was needed to reconnect with younger voters in the wake of the Tories' "ill-conceived" general election campaign.

Fantastic! Yet more Tory Party turmoil, confusion, disarray and plenty more excuses when Brexit fails...

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

The main effect of these is not the direct jobs, but the indirect ones in pharmaceutical and finance sectors.

Then there's the cost of replacing their function...

All this was - and maybe still is to some extent - entirely avoidable.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

“Large private sector organisations are also considering moving to Europe and we can expect many to do so over the next few years.

“That Davis Davis suggested the UK could keep these agencies shows just how little grasp the government has of the potential consequences of Brexit.”

Entirely predictable. Entirely unnecessary. Entirely preventable.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

British banks will lose “passporting rights” to do business in the European Union after Brexit, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said.

Speaking in Brussels on Monday, Michel Barnier said that “Brexit means Brexit” – and that there could be no opt-ins to parts of the single market for certain industries.

“On financial services, UK voices suggest that Brexit does not mean Brexit. Brexit means Brexit, everywhere,” Mr Barnier said in a major speech to a think-tank.

“The legal consequence of Brexit is that the UK financial service providers lose their EU passport. This passport allows them to offer their services to a market of 500 million consumers and 22 million businesses.”

The pronouncement is bad news for the City, where over 5,400 British firms rely on passporting rights to bring in £9bn in revenue every year to Britain. The British Bankers’ Association (BBA) has said the loss of passporting would be “disruptive, costly and time-consuming”.

Entirely predictable. Entirely unnecessary. Entirely preventable.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Last week, the chancellor Philip Hammond said that no one voted for Brexit to make us poorer. Yet the impact of Brexit on the EMA could do just that. As Theresa May herself said in July, “It is hard to think of an industry of greater strategic importance to Britain than its pharmaceutical industry.” In 2015, the UK pharmaceutical industry was worth £12.7 billion. A quarter of the world’s top prescription medicines were discovered and developed in the UK.

And the pharmaceutical industry is the backbone of the broader life sciences sector, which has a turnover of more than £60bn a year. In 2014, it invested £4bn in research and development, more than any other sector, and it employs 220,000 people. In my constituency of Cambridge alone, there are over 160 life sciences companies, reinforcing the local knowledge economy and contributing outside of the region as well. Indeed, Cambridge is one of just a handful of UK cities making a net contribution to HM Treasury, thanks in no small part to its vibrant life sciences. Under Brexit, this is now at risk.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Its aim from the start was to ‘make work pay’. But the roll-out of universal credit quickly hit the buffers for many unemployed people, with delays in payments a particular problem. For the self-employed, the new benefits system is not getting universal approval either. Critics say its use of a ‘minimum income floor’, a financial calculation which assumes a stable level of earnings, is inflexible and is being used unfairly to penalise claimants.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Baroness Hollis tells of a man on #UniversalCredit with a traumatic brain injury sanctioned for missing an appt. After self-harming he could not afford the bus to hospital, so used superglue to close his wound

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

David Davis’s department said last year that it was preparing “an assessment of the impact of exit on over fifty sectors of the economy”, undermining his recent claim that the Brexit impact studies do not exist.

The comment was made in a Freedom of Information response from November 2016, suggesting that work was underway on the documents more than a year before the government backtracked on acknowledging their existence.

In addition, the Guardian has found at least 12 references in Hansard, the official record of parliament, to ministers talking about the work to “assess the impact” or “assess the economic impact” of Brexit over the last year.

The findings are likely to fuel suspicions that the Department for Exiting the European Union does have documentary evidence of the impact of Brexit on the economy.

Parliament asked for 58 impact assessments to be handed over to the select committee on exiting the EU last month, so they could examine how Brexit would affect different sectors.

But MPs who were allowed to view the 800-pages of documents ridiculed the analyses for simply setting out the current situation for businesses, explaining how the EU operates and then providing a section on what stakeholders think.

Davis and other ministers claimed they had never said any “impact assessments” existed, and the committee, which is dominated by Conservatives, ruled that he was not in contempt of parliament for failing to release such documents.

However, campaigners believe the government does still hold relevant information setting out the official view of how Brexit could affect the economy and businesses.

A judicial review has been launched by Green MEP Molly Scott Cato, and the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham, to try to force the government to reveal any analysis of the impact of Brexit but it is not certain this can be completed in time.

Launching the review, Scott Cato said: “There are two possibilities. Either the studies do exist, and Davis has lied to the House and must resign. Or the studies do not exist, in which case Davis is guilty of dereliction of duty and must resign. Either way, he cannot maintain the confidence of the House as our Brexit negotiator.”

Asked about the repeated use of the words “impact” and “assess” to describe the documents, the government has changed tack to claim that the documents released to the House of Commons do in fact analyse the impact of leaving the EU.

A spokesman for the Department for Exiting the European Union pointed to recent comments in the House of Commons by Robin Walker, who denies the existence of impact assessments, but said: “The information that has been shared with the select committee and is available to all members of this House in the reading room includes assessments of the impact on the regulatory matters and of the importance of EU trade to different sectors.”

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?